ccasion, he happening to be now with me. We are both strongly of
opinion, that the prosecution against Burr for misdemeanor should
proceed at Richmond. If defeated, it will heap coals of fire on the
head of the Judge: if successful, it will give time to see whether a
prosecution for treason against him can be instituted in any, and
what other court. But, we incline to think, it may be best to send
Blannerhasset and Smith (Israel) to Kentucky, to be tried both for the
treason and misdemeanor. The trial of Dayton for misdemeanor may as well
go on at Richmond.

I salute you with great esteem and respect.

Th: Jefferson.

LETTER LXIII.--TO THE REV. MR. MILLAR, January 23, 1808

TO THE REV. MR. MILLAR,

Washington, January 23, 1808.

Sir,

I have duly received your favor of the 18th, and am thankful to you
for having written it, because it is more agreeable to prevent than to
refuse what I do not think myself authorized to comply with. I consider
the government of the United States as interdicted by the constitution
from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines,
discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that
no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of
religion, but from that also which reserves to the States the powers
not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any
religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has
been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the
States, as far as it can be in any human authority. But it is only
proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe, a day of fasting and
prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the United States an
authority over religious exercises, which the constitution has directly
precluded them from. It must be meant, too, that this recommendation is
to carry some authority, and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those
who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some
degree of proscription, perhaps in public opinion. And does the change
in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation the less a law of
conduct for those to whom it is directed? I do not believe it is for
the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct
its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious
societies, that the General Government should be invested with the power
of effecting any